The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

[BlindBoo]

The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Yeah I guess Nixon was a Nobel Minded Liberal?

On February 10th, 1970, almost a year before he founded the EPA, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” It therefore seems highly likely that the DDT ban was decided by Nixon long in advance of the EPA hearings.....

The conservative myth is that the ban was worldwide. While the ban did affect the price and popularity of DDT donated to poorer countries like Africa, Ruckelshaus’ decision was based on whether the ban was good for America, which it was and still is. We had alternatives that were just as good and the decision is cited by scientists as a major factor in stopping the bald eagle from going extinct. But the ban was a terrible decision for Africa because it caused a very poor country to adopt more expensive chemicals, causing a large number of unnecessary human deaths. This definitely should have been considered by Nixon and Ruckelshaus before they decided to institute the ban, but even today Ruckelshaus doesn’t see the link between his decision and how the DDT ban affected poorer countries.

Political Rants » The DDT Global Ban Myth

 

[BlindBoo]

The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Yup. I provided substantiation of that claim here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/169159-the-philosophy-of-death-american-liberalism.html.

Nixon was such a Liberal

 

[Nosmo King]

The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Can you connect the dots between the USEPA and equitorial Africa or south Asia? You see, we don't have jurisdiction there.

Just like computer programers say: garbage in, garbage out.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican Party was formed in 1854, by anti-slavery activists. Not 1794.

Thomas Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party, which is NOT the same thing at all.

yes that is how the liberal brain washed you I know. Show a primary source where Jefferson called himself something other than Republican. Show me newspapers speeches ballots congressional records etc where Jefferson was called a Democratic Republican. would you like to make a $10,000 bet. Let me help you with your first lesson in American History:

5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Congress (1799-1801)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Congress (1801-1803)
Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Vacant: 2
Total Seats: 34

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class." ( note that liberty and governemnt are opposites)

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's]. Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."-Susan Dunn,Jefferson's Second Revolution.

-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)

- When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

so you see right from the beginning Republicans opposed statist liberals. Liberalism is opposed to the concept of America and so should be made illegal as the Founders intended.

You think Thomas Jefferson was a member of todays Republican Party?

Thanks for proving my point about your post

 

[Nosmo King]

You think Thomas Jefferson was a member of todays Republican Party?

Thanks for proving my point about your post

Look, Brutus! When it's clear, the sky is a brilliant blue color!

And yet, there is no blue sky if we ask Brutus ten seconds later.

 

[daveman]

The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Yeah I guess Nixon was a Nobel Minded Liberal?

On February 10th, 1970, almost a year before he founded the EPA, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” It therefore seems highly likely that the DDT ban was decided by Nixon long in advance of the EPA hearings.....

No, it wasn't.

But Ruckelshaus, who had never attended even a day of the EPA hearings and had never (by his own admission) read any of the transcripts of those hearings, overruled Sweeney and formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972. His decision was chiefly a consequence of his close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others in the green movement.
​

The conservative myth is that the ban was worldwide. While the ban did affect the price and popularity of DDT donated to poorer countries like Africa, Ruckelshaus’ decision was based on whether the ban was good for America, which it was and still is. We had alternatives that were just as good and the decision is cited by scientists as a major factor in stopping the bald eagle from going extinct. But the ban was a terrible decision for Africa because it caused a very poor country to adopt more expensive chemicals, causing a large number of unnecessary human deaths. This definitely should have been considered by Nixon and Ruckelshaus before they decided to institute the ban, but even today Ruckelshaus doesn’t see the link between his decision and how the DDT ban affected poorer countries.

Political Rants » The DDT Global Ban Myth

The American environmental movement’s campaign against DDT paved the way for other, similar efforts all over the world. In 1975, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) jointly called for a greater emphasis on alternatives to the use of DDT and other insecticides for the control of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.

Four years later the WHO announced a global strategy de-emphasizing vector-control measures for combating malaria, and focusing instead on improvements in case-detection and treatment. That is, efforts to kill the mosquitoes that transmitted malaria would be scaled back; the new approach would allow people to become infected in whatever numbers nature might dictate, and would focus chiefly on the development of more effective treatments for the disease.

In 1980 the WHO and UNEP helped create the Panel of Experts for Environmental Management for vector-borne disease control. Shortly thereafter, the WHO’s vector biology and control program (whose centerpiece had been the use of DDT and other insecticides) was eliminated entirely—for reasons of so-called “environmental” import.​

 

[daveman]

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Yup. I provided substantiation of that claim here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/169159-the-philosophy-of-death-american-liberalism.html.

Nixon was such a Liberal

Read the thread. The decision to ban DDT was Ruckelshaus', not Nixon's.

 

[daveman]

The intellectual basis on which to blame Democrats for million of dead people

I can point to one pet Issue of Liberals that has indeed led to Well over a million dead.

DDT

They scared the hell out of everyone, Over stated how bad it was for the environment and us, and got it Banned. Recent studies show most of the scare tactics they used about DDT were not even true anyways.


Results- Millions around the developing world die of malaria because DDT is no longer used to keep Mosquito Numbers down.


Classic case of Nobel Minded Liberals who have a stunning ability to ignore the possible consequences of their actions, and rush to judgement with out all the info.

BOOOM!

Can you connect the dots between the USEPA and equitorial Africa or south Asia? You see, we don't have jurisdiction there.

Just like computer programers say: garbage in, garbage out.

I repeat:

The American environmental movement’s campaign against DDT paved the way for other, similar efforts all over the world. In 1975, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) jointly called for a greater emphasis on alternatives to the use of DDT and other insecticides for the control of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.

Four years later the WHO announced a global strategy de-emphasizing vector-control measures for combating malaria, and focusing instead on improvements in case-detection and treatment. That is, efforts to kill the mosquitoes that transmitted malaria would be scaled back; the new approach would allow people to become infected in whatever numbers nature might dictate, and would focus chiefly on the development of more effective treatments for the disease.

In 1980 the WHO and UNEP helped create the Panel of Experts for Environmental Management for vector-borne disease control. Shortly thereafter, the WHO’s vector biology and control program (whose centerpiece had been the use of DDT and other insecticides) was eliminated entirely—for reasons of so-called “environmental” import.​

The garbage was the junk science that led to a ban on DDT. NONE of the claims of the environmentalists have ever been proven.

 

[Richard-H]

The introduction of massive amounts of synthesized chemicals into the environment and food supplies should require proof that those chemicals are NOT harmful if they are to be allowed. There should not be a requirement of environmentalists to prove that a chemical IS harmful.

I work at one of the companies that produced DDT. We are still paying off lawsuits. But no one in my company ever suggests that the old system of unregulated safety standards be reinstated.

Daveman - if your so sure that introducing synthesized chemicals into the environment is such a good idea - I've got a whole warehouse of chemicals that you're welcome to taste test for us! It sure would be appreciated! (and not just by members of this message board either.)

 

[Brutus]

You think Thomas Jefferson was a member of todays Republican Party?

only in the sense that his party had an identical name and political philosophy. What more do you want?? Isn't thinking fun?

Thanks for proving my point about your post

what was your point and exactly how did I prove it?

 

[daveman]

The introduction of massive amounts of synthesized chemicals into the environment and food supplies should require proof that those chemicals are NOT harmful if they are to be allowed. There should not be a requirement of environmentalists to prove that a chemical IS harmful.

I work at one of the companies that produced DDT. We are still paying off lawsuits. But no one in my company ever suggests that the old system of unregulated safety standards be reinstated.

Daveman - if your so sure that introducing synthesized chemicals into the environment is such a good idea - I've got a whole warehouse of chemicals that you're welcome to taste test for us! It sure would be appreciated! (and not just by members of this message board either.)

Typical leftist, wanting to silence those you disagree with.

DDT has never been found to be a threat to the environment. Study after study has proven this.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1260

It is noteworthy that two years before he outlawed the pesticide, Ruckelshaus (in an August 31, 1970 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing) had stated unequivocally that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.”

--

After seven months of hearings in 1971, which produced 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, EPA Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that according to the evidence:

“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man ... is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man ... [and the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”​

--

Just as empirical evidence discredits the notion that DDT led to a decline in bird populations, so do the facts contradict claims that the pesticide is harmful to humans and other animals. Said the director of the World Health Organization in 1969 (three years prior to the EPA’s 1972 ban on DDT):

“DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the past 29 years of its existence]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign. Therefore WHO has no grounds to abandon this chemical which has saved millions of lives, the discontinuation of which would result in thousands of human deaths and millions of illnesses. It has served at least 2 billion people in the world without costing a single human life by poisoning from DDT. The discontinuation of the use of DDT would be a disaster to world health.”
According to Dr. Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sabine Island Research Laboratory, “92 percent of DDT and its metabolites disappear” from the environment within 38 days after they have been sprayed.

In 1985 the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that “DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data.”

In 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine stated, “Our data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to [DDT] and PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] increases the risk of breast cancer.”

In August 1998, the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported: “Data from three studies in four Midwestern states [Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas] showed no strong consistent evidence for an association between exposure to DDT and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”

In June 1999, the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention stated, “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.”

One long-term study examined 35 workers who, for periods ranging from 9 to 19 years, were exposed to DDT levels that were 600 times greater than those to which average Americans were exposed; no ill effects were observed.

In another study of male subjects who voluntarily ingested 35 milligrams of DDT daily for nearly two years, the subjects “developed no adverse effects.”

According to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, when primates were exposed to quantities of DDT that were more than 33,000 times greater than the average daily human exposure to the pesticide (as estimated in 1969 and 1972), the results were “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.” Another study found that exposure to DDT reduced the size of tumors in animals.

“The scientific literature does not contain even one peer-reviewed, independently replicated study linking DDT exposures to any adverse health outcome [in humans],” said Dr. Amir Attaran, a malaria expert formerly employed by the World Health Organization and currently affiliated with Harvard University's Center for International Development.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Harold M. Koenig said, “As far as I know, there is no known association between DDT or any other insecticide and cancer. To categorize [Rachel] Carson’s work as research is a big stretch. It was really just hysterical speculation.”​

You've been lied to. The question is, now that you know the truth, will you continue to bitterly cling to the lies?

 

[Nic_Driver]

DDT has never been found to be a threat to the environment.

Odd to make such a claim about a pesticide.

 

[daveman]

DDT has never been found to be a threat to the environment.

Odd to make such a claim about a pesticide.

The science...the real science, not the junk science the left uses...speaks for itself.

Don't tell me you're getting all weepy about mosquitoes.

 

[Richard-H]

Daveman - all I'm saying is that the burden of proof lies with the chemical manufacturers to prove that introduction of a chemical into the environment is NOT harmful.

By your standards we'd be spreading agent orange all over the place. I'm sure that you could dig up a few million quotes stating that that was harmless as well.

I am by no means an environmentalist. I know from personal experience how full of shit they can be.

It's possible that the ban on DDT was an over-reaction, but reintroduction without proof that it's harmless first is idiotic.

You have no idea how bad chemical companies were regarding safety and health standards before the Love Canal decision.

I work in this industry and know both the safety standards and the people who are some of the most knowledgeable about chemicals in the world. I doubt any of them would think that reintroducing DDT without at least 20 years of study would be a good idea.

There is no inaleinable right to do business. Their IS an inaleinable right to life and anytime business threatens anyone's life or health, that business cannot be allowed.

 

[daveman]

Daveman - all I'm saying is that the burden of proof lies with the chemical manufacturers to prove that introduction of a chemical into the environment is NOT harmful.

By your standards we'd be spreading agent orange all over the place. I'm sure that you could dig up a few million quotes stating that that was harmless as well.

I am by no means an environmentalist. I know from personal experience how full of shit they can be.

It's possible that the ban on DDT was an over-reaction, but reintroduction without proof that it's harmless first is idiotic.

It HAS been proven harmless. If you'd read the link I posted, you'd know that.

There is no rational reason to oppose the use of DDT. Period.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yup. I provided substantiation of that claim here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/169159-the-philosophy-of-death-american-liberalism.html.

Nixon was such a Liberal

Read the thread. The decision to ban DDT was Ruckelshaus', not Nixon's.

On the contrary(as was previously posted)

For his role in promulgating the ban in the face of a contrary finding by the EPA hearing, then Administrator William Ruckelshaus has become almost a hate figure amongst the anti-malaria community. Now it appears though that the hate figure should actually be then President Richard Nixon.

In February 10th 1970, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” In December 1970, the administration created the EPA to implement executive environmental policy. As a 1975 study out of Northern Illinois University notes, “This is important . . . before the EPA hearings were convened and even before the EPA was created, Ruckelshaus’ boss, President Nixon, had stated that DDT was being phased out. This leaves the hearings themselves superfluous, satisfying only a court requirement.

Political Rants » The DDT Global Ban Myth

Dave?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wV7rAKMNE]YouTube - ‪Cheech and Chong - Dave's Not Here‬‏[/ame]

 

[Nic_Driver]

DDT has never been found to be a threat to the environment.

Odd to make such a claim about a pesticide.

The science...the real science, not the junk science the left uses...speaks for itself.

Don't tell me you're getting all weepy about mosquitoes.

The whole point of DDT is to alter the environment.

 

[daveman]

Nixon was such a Liberal

Read the thread. The decision to ban DDT was Ruckelshaus', not Nixon's.

On the contrary(as was previously posted)

For his role in promulgating the ban in the face of a contrary finding by the EPA hearing, then Administrator William Ruckelshaus has become almost a hate figure amongst the anti-malaria community. Now it appears though that the hate figure should actually be then President Richard Nixon.

In February 10th 1970, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” In December 1970, the administration created the EPA to implement executive environmental policy. As a 1975 study out of Northern Illinois University notes, “This is important . . . before the EPA hearings were convened and even before the EPA was created, Ruckelshaus’ boss, President Nixon, had stated that DDT was being phased out. This leaves the hearings themselves superfluous, satisfying only a court requirement.

Political Rants » The DDT Global Ban Myth

Dave?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wV7rAKMNE]YouTube - ‪Cheech and Chong - Dave's Not Here‬‏[/ame]

You think a lefty blog that says Carson's work was good science is credible?

 

[daveman]

Odd to make such a claim about a pesticide.

The science...the real science, not the junk science the left uses...speaks for itself.

Don't tell me you're getting all weepy about mosquitoes.

The whole point of DDT is to alter the environment.

...for the better.

 

[cheez18]

Washamericom:
you have to sort of stay in the same historical arena, papercan lincoln was the first republican president.
very different political/ideological classification as the democratic-republicans or the federalists or the whigs.

Brutus:
Here is Congressional record:5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Congress (1799-1801)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Congress (1801-1803)
Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Vacant: 2
Total Seats: 34

Jefferson was a Republican according to facts , but not according to your liberal distortion wekipedia. Moreover, he believed in freedom and liberty from government exactly as modern Republicans do. Welcome to your first lesson in American History!! Democrats have always been opposed to the basic principles of America.

that's fine

word